I’m getting ready to announce an East coast book tour. In planning my Silicon Valley tour, I learned that between scheduling, getting the details needed out, making sure I knew where I was sleeping, there was a large amount of administrative work involved. So I’d like to hire someone to take care of all that for me next time.
I think the tasks will include:
- Engage with companies/venues interested in having me speak to work through scheduling & logistics, including ordering books
- Scheduling (including travel time, setup, speaking, signing)
- Travel coordination including hotels & trains
Do you have recommendations for a virtual assistant service that you’ve used for something at this level of complexity?
Alternately, convince me that I want a specialized book tour operator? My experience in Silicon Valley was that most venues were companies, and many were good enough to buy the books for their employees. So I don’t think I need someone specialized.
Via Poynter, we learn that the word “massive” has been banned on Gawker.
We want to sound like regular adult human beings, not Buzzfeed writers or Reddit commenters,” new Gawker Editor Max Read says in a memo to the publication’s writers. Words like “epic,” “pwn” and “derp” are no longer welcome on the site. Read also says the word “massive” is “never to appear on the website Gawker dot com.”
The desire to sound like regular human beings is admirable, and Mr. Read is correct when he says that jokes made using strikethrough are generally not worth saving.
However, he seems to fall into a trap of believing that there is an hierarchy of language goodness which is removed from our social hierarchies. We’re not the French, with L’Acadamie française to define correct language, and to be ignored by Le Frenchmen
dans on le weekends.
The observable reality is that language evolves as a result of a variety of pressures or opportunities. That is, language is emergent, not decreed. There is no authority who gets to declare what words a community uses (outside of NewSpeak, and even in Orwell’s world, normal people don’t use NewSpeak daily, because the words decreed by Big Brother didn’t serve their needs. Real language is inevitably chaotic and messy.
This is a massive pile of derp, and an epic mistake on Gawker’s part.
[Updated to add a strikethrough joke.]
I am super-excited to announce that my new book, Threat Modeling: Designing for Security (Wiley, 2014) is now available wherever fine books are sold!
The official description:
If you’re a software developer, systems manager, or security professional, this book will show you how to use threat modeling in the security development lifecycle and the overall software and systems design processes. Author and security expert Adam Shostack puts his considerable expertise to work in this book that, unlike any other, details the process of building improved security into the design of software, computer services, and systems — from the very beginning.
Find and fix security issues before they hurt you or your customers
Learn to use practical and actionable tools, techniques, and approaches for software developers, IT professionals, and security enthusiasts
Explore the nuances of software-centric threat modeling and discover its application to software and systems during the build phase and beyond
Apply threat modeling to improve security when managing complex systems (or even simple ones!)
Manage potential threats using a structured, methodical framework
Discover and discern evolving security threats
Use specific, actionable advice regardless of software type, operating system, or program approaches and techniques validated and proven to be effective at Microsoft and other top IT companies
Threat Modeling: Designing for Security is full of actionable, tested advice for software developers, systems architects and managers, and security professionals. From the very first chapter, it teaches the reader how to threat model. That is, how to use models to predict and prevent problems, even before you’ve started coding.
Threat Modeling: Designing for Security is jargon-free, accessible, and provides proven frameworks that are designed to integrate into real projects that need to ship on tight schedules.
For more information, I’ve set up a small book website: threatmodelingbook.com.
Amazon has Kindle edition, and is saying that the paperback will ship in “9-11 days.” I believe that’s startup issues in getting the books to and through the warehousing system, but don’t know details. I will be having a book signing at RSA, Wednesday at 11 AM in Moscone South. (iCal reminder.)
In light of me celebrating the joyous chaos of what to put on which blog, but more importantly, not wanting readers to have to subscribe to three blogs, I’ll be blogging about threat modeling over on the New School blog.
There’s an absolutely fascinating interview with Adam Back: “Let’s Talk Bitcoin Adam Back interview.”
For those of you who don’t know Adam, he created Hashcash, which is at the core of Bitcoin proof of work.
Two elements I’d like to call attention to in particular are:
First, there’s an interesting contrast between Adam’s opinions and Glenn Flieshman’s opinions in “On the Matter of Why Bitcoin Matters.” In particular, Glenn seems to think that transaction dispute should be in the protocol, and Adam thinks it should be layered on in some way. (Near as I can tell, Glenn is a very smart journalist, but he’s not a protocol designer.)
Secondly, Adam discusses the ways in which a really smart fellow, deeply steeped in the underlying technologies, can fail to see how all the elements of Bitcoin happened to combine into a real ecash system. Like Adam, I was focused on properties other systems have and Bitcoin does not, and so was unexcited by it. There’s an interesting lesson in humility there for me.
This is also interesting “How the Bitcoin protocol works.”
I’m getting ready for to announce a new project that I’ve been working on for quite a while.
As I get ready, I was talking to friends in PR and marketing, and they were shocked and appalled that I don’t have a mailing list. It was a little like telling people in security that you don’t fuzz your code.
Now, I don’t know a lot about marketing, but I do know that look which implies table stakes. So I’ve set up a mailing list. I’ve cleverly named it “Adam Shostack’s New Thing.” It’ll be the first place to hear about the new things I’m creating — books, games or anything else.
People who sign up will be the first to hear my news.
[Update: Some people are asking why I don't just use Twitter or blogs? I plan to, but there are people who'd like more concentrated news in their inbox. Cool. I can help them. And much as I love Twitter, it's easy for a tweet to be lost, and easy to fall into the trap of retweeting yourself every hour to overcome that. That's annoying to your followers who see you repeating yourself.]
Alan Shimmy has the nominations for the 2014 Social Security bloggers award!
New School has been nominated for most entertaining, while Emergent Chaos has been nominated for best representing the security industry and the hall of fame.
Now, I have no idea what it means that Emergent Chaos would represent the security industry. I’m hopeful that it’s intended as a complement.
I blogged yesterday about all the new works that have entered the public domain as their copyright expired in the United States. If you missed it, that’s because exactly nothing entered the public domain yesterday.
Read more — but only commentary, because there’s no newly free work — at “What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014?”
It’s near-impossible to see how our insanely long copyright terms, or their never-ending extensions encourage Dr. Seuss, Ayn Rand, Jack Kerouac or Ian Fleming to keep producing new work. Those authors have been richly rewarded for their work. But it’s easy to see how keeping those works under copyright reduces creative re-use of our collective cultural heritage.
In light of recent news, such as “FreeBSD washing Intel-chip randomness” and “alleged NSA-RSA scheming,” what advice should we give engineers who want to use randomness in their designs?
My advice for software engineers building things used to be to rely on the OS to get it right. That defers the problem to a small number of smart people. Is that still the right advice, despite recent news? The right advice is pretty clearly not that a normal software engineer building in Ruby on Rails or asp.net should go and roll their own. It also cannot be that they spend days wading through debates. Experts ought to be providing guidance on what to do.
Is the right thing to hash together the OS and something else? If so, precisely what something else?
The Gavle Goat has burned again, according to The Local.Se, and of course, it’s Twitter account (yet one more way in which real name policies inhibit natural behavior).
Two quick comments. First, the goat survived longer this year than usual. Second, I think it illustrates something. I’m not sure what. But my yule would be incomplete without a giant straw goat set ablaze.
There’s a new study on what people would pay for privacy in apps. As reported by Techflash:
A study by two University of Colorado Boulder economists, Scott Savage and Donald Waldman, found the average user would pay varying amounts for different kinds of privacy: $4.05 to conceal contact lists, $2.28 to keep their browser history private, $2.12 to eliminate advertising on apps, $1.19 to conceal personal locations, $1.75 to conceal the phone’s ID number and $3.58 to conceal the contents of text messages.
Those numbers seem small, but they’re in the context of app pricing, which is generally a few bucks. If those numbers combine linearly, people being willing to pay up to $10 more for a private version is a very high valuation. (Of course, the numbers will combine in ways that are not strictly rational. Consumers satisfice.
A quick skim of the article leads me to think that they didn’t estimate app maker benefit from these privacy changes. How much does a consumer contact list go for? (And how does that compare to the fines for improperly revealing it?) How much does an app maker make per person whose eyeballs they sell to show ads?